Mitochondrial capacity using NIRS and incomplete recovery curves: Proximal and Medial Vastus Lateralis muscle.
Mitochondrial capacity using NIRS and incomplete recovery curves: Proximal and Medial Vastus Lateralis muscle.
复制标题
使用 NIRS 和不完全恢复曲线的线粒体容量：近端和内侧股外侧肌。
DOI：
10.1117/12.2546051
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beard,Samuel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McCully,KevinK;Liebowitz,Zachary;Sumner,MaxwellD;Beard,Samuel
近红外光谱（NIRS）已被用于测量肌肉线粒体容量（mVO2max）作为运动后肌肉代谢的恢复速率常数。目前的方法需要多达50个短缺血闭塞来生成2个恢复速率常数。目的确定使用6个闭塞方案（Mito6）与22个闭塞方案（Mito22）测量肌肉线粒体容量的有效性。方法在两个独立数据集（肱二头肌n=7，前臂A n=23）中，分别使用Mito6和Mito22分析恢复曲线。第三个数据集（前臂B， n=16）是通过连续进行四次Mito6测试在健康受试者前臂肌肉上生成的。使用MATLAB例程生成回收率常数。结果在同一数据集计算时，Mito22和Mito6分析对二头肌（1.43+0.33min-1, 1.43+0.35min-1, p=0.81）和前臂A （1.97+0.40min-1, 1.97+0.43min-1, p=0.90）的恢复速率常数无显著差异。Mito22和Mito6恢复率常数的相关系数为y=1.07x-0.09，二头肌数据R2=0.90，前臂A数据1.00x+0.01, R2=0.85。在前臂B研究中进行四项Mito6测试时；各试验回收率常数（1.50±0.51 min-1、1.42±0.54 min-1、1.26±0.41 min-1、1.29±0.47 min-1, P < 0.05）无显著差异。结论Mito6分析与较长Mito22分析的肌肉线粒体容量无显著差异。Mito6方案被认为更实用，因为它使用更少的缺血闭塞期，并且可以在更短的时间内连续进行多项测试。线粒体容量的四次重复Mito6测试的速率常数没有顺序效应，支持使用多次测试来提高准确性。
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) has been used to measure muscle mitochondrial capacity (mVO2max) as the recovery rate constant of muscle metabolism after exercise. The current method requires as many as 50 short ischemic occlusions to generate 2 recovery rate constants.PURPOSETo determine the effectiveness of using a 6-occlusion protocol (Mito6) versus one with 22 occlusions (Mito22) to measure muscle mitochondrial capacity.METHODIn two independent data sets (bicep n=7, forearm A n=23), recovery curves were analyzed independently using both the Mito6 and Mito22 analyses. A third data set (Forearm B, n=16) was generated on forearm muscles of healthy subjects using four Mito6 tests performed in succession. Recovery rate constants were generated using a MATLAB routine.RESULTSWhen calculated from the same data set, the recovery rate constants were not significantly different between the Mito22 and Mito6 analyses for the bicep (1.43+0.33min-1, 1.43+0.35min-1, p=0.81) and the forearm A (1.97+0.40min-1, 1.97+0.43min-1, p=0.90). The correlation between Mito22 and Mito6 recovery rate constants was y=1.07x-0.09, R2=0.90 for the bicep data and 1.00x+0.01, R2=0.85 for the forearm A data. When performing the four Mito6 tests in the Forearm B study; recovery rate constants were not different between tests (1.50±0.51 min-1, 1.42±0.54 min-1, 1.26±0.41 min-1, 1.29±0.47 min-1, P>0.05).CONCLUSIONSMuscle mitochondrial capacity was not different between the Mito6 analysis and the longer Mito22 analysis. The Mito6 protocol was considered more practical as it used fewer ischemic occlusion periods, and multiple tests could be performed in succession in less time. There were no order effects for the rate constants of four repeated Mito6 tests of mitochondrial capacity, supporting the use of multiple tests to improve accuracy.